NWA strikers denied jobless pay

[JEP]

...

A judge ruled that even though their jobs are gone, their strike continues, making them ineligible for benefits.

Liz Fedor, Star Tribune Last update: April 05, 2006 – 8:39 PM

NWA Labor

NWA strikers denied jobless pay
NWA mechanics press for unemployment benefits
Northwest, pilots await important decisions
Some NWA ground workers vote down pay cut
NWA, unions given more time to talk

A Minnesota judge ruled Wednesday that striking Northwest Airlines mechanics remain ineligible for unemployment benefits because their strike remains active.

Kent Todd, an unemployment law judge, cited Minnesota Supreme Court decisions to explain why striking mechanics fail to qualify for jobless benefits. In three key cases, Todd wrote, "The court held that the labor dispute ended either when the parties reached a settlement or when the striking workers unconditionally agreed to return to work."

The leaders of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) have not called off the strike against Northwest, he noted, nor have the two sides reached a negotiated agreement.

If the strike ends, the mechanics would become eligible for state unemployment benefits that are funded by employer contributions.
The strike began Aug. 19. Northwest started hiring permanent replacements Sept. 13 and completed that process by late 2005.
"AMFA admits that the strike continues, but argues that the labor dispute is no longer in active progress," Todd wrote, because "no jobs exist for the striking mechanics to return to work."

But that reality does not meet the legal threshold to qualify for unemployment benefits, he indicated. "Minnesota appellate courts have not held specifically that an employer's replacement of striking workers ends a labor dispute," Todd wrote.

He added that AMFA's rules permit its leadership "to end the strike without a vote of its members." In his four-page decision, the judge mentioned that AMFA's leadership did not put a contract offer out for a vote until December, when Northwest had filled all of the available 880 jobs.
The offer that triggered the strike included saving 2,750 jobs, but Northwest wanted the remaining mechanics to take pay cuts of about 25 percent. About 4,400 mechanics, cleaners and custodians were employed by Northwest before the strike. Under Northwest's August offer, those who lost their jobs would have qualified for up to 26 weeks of severance pay from Northwest.

In December, AMFA members rejected a contract offer that would have changed their status from on strike to laid off, qualifying them for unemployment benefits.

Liz Fedor • 612-673-7709

[mpenguin1]

I think this pretty much sums it up......

The leaders of the Aircraft Mechanics Fraternal Association (AMFA) have not called off the strike against Northwest, he noted, nor have the two sides reached a negotiated agreement.

If the strike ends, the mechanics would become eligible for state unemployment benefits that are funded by employer contributions. ...

[Mr_Creepy]

That's pretty much standard Railway Labor act stuff. One of the downsides of being union is that you are subject to the contract first.

It's not like they were fired or anything, and collective bargaining tactics like a strike don't count as "an act of God."

[pilot602]

No, but how many years did each of those employees pay into the unemployement fund and they are excercising a legal right to strike.

[wheelsup]

Originally Posted by pilot602

No, but how many years did each of those employees pay into the unemployement fund and they are excercising a legal right to strike.

I'm not expert in employment law, but my understanding of "unemployment" is if said person involuntarily leaves a company (fulough, lay off, etc.). If someone just up and quits, leaves on their own terms, or is fired, their claim for unemployment most likely won't be approved. The mechanics voluntarily voted "YES" for the strike, and as such they weren't laid off.

[shooter13]

My wife who is the Human Resources Director for her company and who is quickly moving to her second title at home of sugar momma which is a title I prefer to "She-who-must-be-obeyed" Read the stroy and told me it looked like a pretty reasonable interpretation of the law. Sucks for the strikers though!

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Originally Posted by pilot602

No, but how many years did each of those employees pay into the unemployement fund and they are excercising a legal right to strike.

They didn't pay a thin red cent into the unemployment fund -- NWA did. And, yes, they are exercising their right to strike. Under Minnesota law (and in most states) you cannot claim unemployment compensation if you voluntarily leave your position -- including a strike.

John T. -- The RLA ain't got nothin' to do with it.

MF

[shooter13]

It could easily be argued that pay rates would be higher if the company weren't paying unemployment insurance. Possibly but not for sure.

[jtrain609]

Not a chance, the company would blow that cash on the next fare sale.

I could run an airline better than these guys, and I'm a hippie!

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Originally Posted by John Herreshoff

Not a chance, the company would blow that cash on the next fare sale.

I could run an airline better than these guys, and I'm a hippie!

I can't tell you how glad I am to use my 1,000th post to say that I agree completely with John H. -- he is a dirty, deadbeat hippie!!!




Total conscious knowledge is MINE!!

[Mr_Creepy]

Originally Posted by Minnesota_Flyer

They didn't pay a thin red cent into the unemployment fund -- NWA did. And, yes, they are exercising their right to strike. Under Minnesota law (and in most states) you cannot claim unemployment compensation if you voluntarily leave your position -- including a strike.

John T. -- The RLA ain't got nothin' to do with it.

MF

Yeah you're right. Good point on the Unemployment payments!

This is the reason unions maintain strike funds!

[pilot602]

Originally Posted by wheelsup

I'm not expert in employment law, but my understanding of "unemployment" is if said person involuntarily leaves a company (fulough, lay off, etc.). If someone just up and quits, leaves on their own terms, or is fired, their claim for unemployment most likely won't be approved. The mechanics voluntarily voted "YES" for the strike, and as such they weren't laid off.

Never said they were being illegally wronged ...

[tonyw]

Well, I guess for unemployment purposes, a strike is considered voluntarily quitting. As much as my pro-labor mindset makes me hate saying this, I think it makes sense.

[Minnesota_Flyer]

Originally Posted by Mr_Creepy

This is the reason unions maintain strike funds!

Yep. Except that AMFA doesn't maintain a strike fund (for some ideological reason I've never remotely understood).

[Mr_Creepy]

That's bad. Either the union is underfunded, or the officials are taking too much money out of it.

A strike fund is essential. A union with no strike fund has no teeth!